[2] Parry claimed he was with his fiancee Lily Lloyd all that evening, but some time afterwards, I believe after Wallace had died, she said she had been playing piano in a cinema that evening.
Graham

Thanks for your views, Graham. On point [2], Lily Lloyd acted as you said, but Parry's alibi was given by Mrs Olivia Brine, who stated that Parry was at her house on the night of the murder from 5:30pm til 8:30pm. If this is accepted, Parry could not be the killer, but he could still be involved with the call (see my earlier comment). The police did not adequately verify Brine's statement, however, so a measure of doubt still hangs over Parry.

Ooh good, another classic British murder!
I've really never been able to figure out how Wallace had the time to kill Julia before going out, as you point out, ColdCase. On the whole I think Parry more likely to be guilty than Wallace (there is at least a slight motive for Parry to attack and kill Mrs Wallace, while with Wallace himself there's nothing at all, no quarrels, no other woman, no substantial insurance policy payout). He and Julia lived a quiet and rather dull married life with no drama. All the same, the case for Parry as murderer is by no means open and shut either!

I've really never been able to figure out how Wallace had the time to kill Julia before going out, as you point out, ColdCase.

Hi Roz, if you believe Wallace had insufficient time (and even the trial judge thought that 20 minutes was 'lightning fast' work on his part, let alone 10 or less), then this rules out 2 out of the 4 verdicts. You are still left with Parry (as you say), or Conspiracy, i.e. Wallace masterminded the murder but took no part in the call or the killing. This last theory is also covered in my book.

The reason I'm mostly sure that Wallace did it is the fact that the woman next door heard Close knock before Wallace left but heard no one-Parry, Marsden, Young, Johnston, the Anfield Housebreaker or whoever-knock later.

__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

It depends on what she was doing later that evening though, doesn't it Stan? For instance, if she was filling a kettle, using the taps full-blast in order to wash a few things, listening to the radio, 'wireless' as they called it in those days, in the sitting room, or doing anything away from the kitchen or front parlour she need not necessarily have noticed a knock on the door.

A conspiracy, with the aloof Wallace as a mastermind is an attractive scenario, ColdCase. However, I don't believe in conspiracies of this sort, I'm afraid.

Conspiracy to murder Andrew Borden (a very wealthy man) used to be discussed regularly on the Lizzie Borden forum I was on a few years ago. If two or three people plot to commit murder, nine times out of ten it unravels because one of them can't keep their mouth shut afterwards with a spouse, lover, sweetheart, mother, brother.

It would take an absolute miracle for two or more people to keep mum for decades following Wallace's death. And what motivation would there be? There's no evidence that Wallace hated or loathed his wife, and even if he did why should men who had no bond with him, no allegiance to him, risk their necks to commit the deed for him? (And in those days it would have been literally a neck risking event.)

After all, unless there was direct evidence in the way of a letter or a witness to their transactions all Wallace would have to do would be to deny it afterwards if the others were arrested. Wallace had no money to pay anyone off and would leave himself open to blackmail by his unscrupulous co-conspirators or anyone they'd told.

To be fair to Goodman, he did not focus on Parry in his 1969 book The Killing of Julia of Wallace. His aim in his book was to prove Wallace innocent, and only spent a few pages speculating on the identity of the murderer. True, he supported Roger Wilkes in the radio broadcasts in 1980, which pointed the finger at Parry.

But did Wallace have enough time to commit the crime? If you read James Murphy's account of what Wallace did, Wallace had to do an awful lot to do in a very short time. From my book:

If the milk boy saw Julia Wallace alive at 6:45pm, as he originally told his friends, then Wallace could never have completed everything he is alleged to have done – bludgeon his wife, wash, dry, dress, tidy the bathroom, clean and possibly hide the iron bar, and stage a robbery – in only three minutes before departing his house at 6:48pm [see Exhibit H in the Evidence File for a justification of the departure time]. This is why your view on the timing of the milk delivery is crucial: if you believe that the Alan Close spoke to Julia Wallace at 6:45pm then you cannot accept this view of the murder. If you believe that Alan Close called earlier, the maximum amount of time available to Wallace was 18 minutes. How long does it take to kill, clean up, stage the house and leave? For how long would you scrub the bath, knowing that if the police found a trace of blood you might be hanged? Did Wallace have enough time? This is a crucial question.

Jon Goodman was a good friend and mentor of mine. The reason he did not come fully out in 1969 to name Parry was that the latter was (at the time of publication) still alive, and was capable of bringing a libel suit. Once Richard Parry died, Jon fully named him as a suspect in some of his other works.

I tend to respect Jon's opinions, and his study of the case certainly showed serious problems with the Liverpool police department in 1931 and with the prosecution's case. However I have noted the number of (for want of a better term) "Parry defenders", so if it turns out to really be Wallace I'd accept the fact. Edgar Lustgarten was also deeply impressed by the case, and ended a discussion on the radio about it by realizing that "Qualtrough" might still be alive in the 1950s, and addressing him. But he also realized the evidence in this incredible case was quite symetrical in making both pro and anti Wallace solutions probable.

By the way, the issue of whether or not Wallace ever really was unaware of the Melrose Garden address he got over the phone (which he used when he asked various people that night for it's location as proof that he was not near his home when the murder may have occured) is a fair one, but from a type of personal experience I can support the possibility that Wallace did not know of the non-existance of that address. I live in the borough of Queens in New York City (which happens to have five boroughs, each with a huge number of streets). Frequently I will go into Manhattan for various reasons. When I do I happen to review the streets I need to get to in a book of Manhattan streets. Everybody is aware of our main avenues in Manhattan (First to Third, Lexington, Madison, Park, Fifth to Ninth or Tenth). Madison Avenue is best known for the advertising world and for up-scale apartment houses in midtown. But it was only in the 1990s that I learned there is also a rather small "Madison Street" also in Manhattan - lower Manhattan. It dates back to before the 1840s, and the city expanded much further uptown. So, yes, one might discover similar named streets exist that you were unaware of. In the Wallace it was an attempt to find the locale of one that just did not happen to exist.

The reason I'm mostly sure that Wallace did it is the fact that the woman next door heard Close knock before Wallace left but heard no one-Parry, Marsden, Young, Johnston, the Anfield Housebreaker or whoever-knock later.

This is a good point, for sure, but I'm not sure that it warrants your conclusion (i.e. mostly sure that Wallace is guilty). Firstly, the neighbour (Brit spelling) heard a knock at around 6:30pm - this is totally different to saying she heard Close knock. As I point out in my book, who is to say she did not hear the paper being delivered by David Jones? The timings fit. Secondly, who is to say the killer would have knocked? Parry (for example) could have opened the back door without knocking. The housebreaker would surely not have knocked. So a lack of knocking (so to speak) does not point to Wallace. Thirdly, is it not possible that someone knocked, and the neightbours did not hear it?

Nevertheless, your point could be made stronger. The neighbours heard no knocks, no talking, no shouting. Surely this points to Wallace? I say it does not, because of what Florence Johnston DID HEAR. Just before 8:30pm she heard two thumps (these were the only suspicious noises she heard that evening). But at this time Wallace would have been still making his way home.

Ooh good, another classic British murder!
I've really never been able to figure out how Wallace had the time to kill Julia before going out, as you point out, ColdCase. On the whole I think Parry more likely to be guilty than Wallace (there is at least a slight motive for Parry to attack and kill Mrs Wallace, while with Wallace himself there's nothing at all, no quarrels, no other woman, no substantial insurance policy payout). He and Julia lived a quiet and rather dull married life with no drama. All the same, the case for Parry as murderer is by no means open and shut either!

The one defect about Wallace having no motive to kill Julia is that we would not really be aware of what went on in their married lives together - people generally don't like to air dirty family linen about incompatibility unless some act of aggression or violence leads to third parties being aware of it. I tend to think it was a good marriage, and Wallace in his last days felt he was being targeted by the killer like Julia was (or so he wrote). However, this may have been evidence of some mental problem or even additional protection for his damaged reputation (he had been convicted, after all, but was lucky to be released by the high court). Again, remarkable symmatry in the way evidence and facts go in both directions in this case.

When I knew less about the case and since one witness claimed to have seen him talking to a man shortly before he returned home, I thought maybe Wallace hired Parry to do it. One theory for the reason Parry had such a good multiple person alibi for the time of the murder is that he caught wind somehow that Wallace was going to try to set him up.

__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.